Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Hate Women’s Sexuality?

The abortion issue is not solely about a women’s right to choose, it is about the hatred and fear of women’s sexuality. There is a subtext to this movement, shown plainly by the actions of many Anti-Abortion supporters, that goes way beyond the issue of whether abortion is murder. This is not asserting my opinion as to the validity of either side in the Anti-Abortion debate. It is not to stir up a debate for or against abortion. I’ve commented here enough for people to know where I stand on the issue. What has bothered me for a long time on this issue has been whether it is just about being for or against a women’s right to choose? If it is only about the right of choice, then I could at least accept that those who would deny it have sufficient beliefs to justify their actions, without there being another unspoken agenda. Indeed, the original initiator of the anti-abortion issue was the Roman Catholic Church.
The RCC’s position is that society should ensure a safety net to take care of babies and children after they are born. I may not agree with the Church’s teachings, but I applaud the fact that they at least recognize that if you are going to have the State ban abortions, then the State must also have responsibility for taking care of those children not aborted. This makes sense to me as a viable belief to have if you are solely against abortion.

An article in Friday’s Huffpost, got me thinking about this issue and the implications of trying to de-fund Planned Parenthood, a Non-Profit that I believe is providing extremely important services throughout our country. Fully 96% of Planned Parenthood’s services go to identification/treatment of STD’s, Cancer Screening, Contraception, and other vital women’s health services. None of these services include abortions. These are essential services needed by all women. However, the viral opposition to Planned Parenthood funding and the de-funding of its’ programs by various States, comes primarily from those opposed to abortions. Planned Parenthood provides very necessary services to the community at large that government should support. Remember it is a private not public institution, cheaper in provision of these services than can be offered by profit making institutions. Why do anti-abortionists hate Planned Parenthood and other similar Non-Profit services?

One female member of Congress, discussing Planned Parenthood de-funding put it this way:

“The real purpose here, as I’ve come to view it, is to impose a traditional view of a women’s role,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told HuffPost. “Republicans don’t really care what the benefits of Title X funding are in terms of women’s health, so women’s health is held hostage. Planned Parenthood can prevent 4,000 women a year from dying of cervical cancer with screenings and vaccines, but that is not of interest to them because of a personal and philosophical agenda.”

What is the personal and philosophical agenda to which Rep. DeLauro is referring? It goes far beyond some peoples deeply held beliefs that abortion is murder. Beyond that belief is that women do not have the right to sexual autonomy and therefore are in need of punishment if they have sex outside of marriage. Therefore, women should be denied birth control counseling, STD identification, and treatment to ensure that they are sufficiently chastened for daring to go beyond the bounds of some people’s religious beliefs. This is the only logical inference to be drawn, and yet if one examines this logically this is highly inconsistent with the ostensible aims of the anti-abortion movement. If they were actually worried that abortions are murder of a fetus, then you would think that birth control, which would prevent many abortions, would be a good thing.

We know that this is not the case. Since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t approve of birth control, we know what answer they would give. I would suppose those religious fundamentalists who believe in abstention until marriage would also be against it. However, what is a worse sin? Is it “murder” as the anti-choice people deem it, or is it preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first instance?

I find answer obvious. We generally see murder as the worst of human crimes. One would think that if something could prevent “murder”, better the lesser of the two sins, than the ultimate one. The reasoning of the anti-choice people doesn’t seem to follow that line of logic. Therefore, I can only conclude that the concern to halt abortions is only secondary to the real agenda of some leaders of the anti-choice movement.

My conclusion is that the subtext of this anti-choice movement, at least its leadership, is a hatred of women being autonomous sexually and the concomitant desire to punish them for having sex outside of marriage. This is why they also oppose birth control education. The “abstinence only” meme they push is a failure. As a result we find that incidences of teen pregnancy are higher in states more aligned with anti-choice, anti women’s sexuality values.

“Only a quarter of evangelical teens abstain from sexual activity more than other teens. And expanding access to contraception, rather than abortion, is the best way to delay marriage and promote stable families.”

The above article, a book review, delves more deeply into the subject. The quote I’ve presented provides interesting evidence of the fear that fundamentalist anti-choice people have about female sexuality. Despite all their preaching of abstinence, their teen women are having sex a lot and it makes them angry. Angry at a “permissive” society where sexuality is rampant and angry enough at their “disobedient” children to see them punished for not following their rules. There is probably another dichotomy that exists in that many men are proud when their son has loses his virginity, but enraged if it is their daughter.

The notion of female sexual autonomy is frightening to many religious people, since all major religions have a history of male domination. If women can assert their own right to be sexual beings, then this would also give them leave to assert that they are to have equal footing with men in all respects, including in marriage and worship. This would represent such a radical revolution of ideas to those of religious fundamentalist bent, as to create fear and loathing, which of course translates readily into hatred.

Anticipating objections to funding Planned Parenthood, FactCheck.com presents the following article detailing the funding of Planned Parenthood and showing that the opposition to it can’t possibly be all about abortions. The following relevant quote is from this article:

“Abortions represent 3 percent of total services provided by Planned Parenthood, and roughly 10 percent of its clients received an abortion. The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law.”

Share this:

Like this:

160 Responses

I don’t know about hate, but they certainly do seem to fear women’s sexuality. It seems to me that they hate women’s freedom as related to their sexuality rather the necessarily hating their sexuality itself. There is that whole “be fruitful and multiply” meme that like to latch on to.

I agree that this discussion recognizes the view of some of those, maybe most of those, who would deny funding to Planned Parenthood. However, I do think that there are those who sincerely believe that abortion is the murder of the most vulnerable, and that stopping any organization engaging in that activity is of the utmost importance. I think that most of us would agree that a business that engaged in murder as part of its regular activities should probably be closed down–even if engaged in otherwise beneficial activities. For some people, that is what Planned Parenthood is. I can respect that view, even if I don’t agree, when voiced by those who recognize the importance of providing alternate sources for the many services provided by Planned Parenthood.

I don’t know if the anti- abortion movement totally hates women’s sexuality. There are some splits in their thinking. Sarah Palin is one of their stars yet fundamentalist men think she is “hot”. She plays it up well..She chose not to abort her Downs Syndrome child. I understand the catholic culture better. The belief is the child has a soul from conception. When I grew up having ten children was not unusual but you were not supposed to think about all the sex these couples had to get the ten kids. I guess it was the immaculate conception thinking again.

ALL Anti-Abortion folks, including other women, who pretend this is about ‘protecting’ anything are liars. They want their slaves that they’ve owned for centuries and want to continue that way of life. Even the women in the anti-abortion movement have said either publicly or in private that they have GIVEN UP their right to decide about what happens to their own body. They have, in fact, put their own life in the hands of others who may share as much, but no evidence would support this, desire to maintain this way of life forever.. It is pure, unadulterated slavery. People pay MILLIONS to promote this way of life and have for millennium, and continue to do so thru school, churches, businesses, advertising, hate groups, public rallies, books, etc. and any other vehicle they can invent to keep their dominance alive.

So if you believe that anti-abortion rhetoric is something else, then you need to re-examine your perspective.. Rip the layers of your preconceived notions away from what you think and look at this for what it really is… People willing, from fear or for money, give up the decisions they could make about life or death to someone else. This is a one time deal. Once you or someone else decides, then all your decisions in the future are tainted by this one…. IF you decide that this decision is no longer a woman’s right, you’re a slavery advocate – pure and simple and there is NO going back.

It’s instructive to compare the anti-abortion movement of today with the one that existed 40 years ago. the latter was largely based in the Catholic Church and reflected an effort to articulate a set of morally and operationally consistent ideas that could be considered “pro-life”, including opposition to capital punishment and “artificial” birth control. The movement today retains Catholic Church sponsorship, but the most visible Catholic leaders are nearly as crazy and morally inconsistent in their outlook as the evangelical protestants who’ve take over the movement. Under the evangelicals, the abortion movement has been decoupled from other moral positions, except for birth control, a position that the movement now tries to hide. Although the Catholic Church is certainly patriarchal, the dominance of women and the attack on their autonomy is far more central to the tactics and overt world view of the evangelicals.

The defenders of reproductive rights have really failed in the last generation to do anything to take the offensive or develop true grassroots. Poor women are mentioned but not organized. Rights here have been treated as an abstract concept not an issue of daily life and there has been a failure to craft legislation that would reverse attacks on reproductive rights. Abortion has always been common, before and after Roe v. Wade, but kept in a closet. It’s easy to villify abortion opponents for what they are, but it’s equally important to put pressure on the presumed defenders of these rights for what they’ve been…ardent bourgeois fundraisers rather than active grassroots organizers or advocates.

The abortion issue is not solely about a women’s right to choose, it is about the hatred and fear of women’s sexuality.
__________________________________________________________

The author, clearly, hates people who don’t think like he does and that is why he leads off with the subject of “hate”. His standard for what hate is defined to mean anything one decides that it is. And by his own standard, I define his attitude about right wingers to be hatred.

That said, what opponents of abortion hate is murder. This is a reasonable response and something left wingers cannot grasp, because, apparently, they are too stupid.

Yet right wingers , who are supposed to be stupid according to left wingers, have somehow figured out that sex leads to child bearing. They know if you have sex you are committing an act that may lead to children. Thus you don’t do the sex if you don’t want the kids. Or if you do do the sex, you accept the responsibility of your actions.

It is a no-brainer (which means leftist hate-mongers and murderers won’t “get it”.)

To wish to abort after knowing clearly that sex leads to babies, is like robbing a bank knowing it is illegal, then after getting caught demanding the right to “unrob” it.

Then they should learn the definition of this purely legal term. It is:

murder, n, the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

Abortion, of course, is not murder by definition since is is both legally authorized and in furtherance of the right to be left alone by the government.

murder, n, the death of any person we care about and who arguably is of our race and religion by persons we don’t care about and whose rights we hold in contempt. If we care about the killer, then we call the killing “God’s Will.” This applies to persons the law considers “murderers” as well as those people with whom the faithful disagree.

To answer Mike’s question, the anti-rights crowd hates just about everybody not of their religion and everything they don’t know about or with whom they disagree, eschewing forever the old song, “We shall know they are Christians by their love.” Maybe they meant just for themselves.

Try any dictionary Tootie. Do I have to do all of your work.
As to your definition of the crime of “rape,” yes an apple would not be an apple if it didn’t meet the definition of an apple. That would be a peach! Do you have any idea how stupid that question of yours sounds? And that laughing you hear is all of us.

murder, n, the death of any person we care about and who arguably is of our race and religion by persons we don’t care about and whose rights we hold in contempt….”
_________________________________________________________

Mind you it is those evil right wingers who DO NOT ADVOCATE the slaughter of blacks viz a viz abortion (which occurs at a higher rate than whites). The Democrats cheer it on baby! ( Ghoulish pun intended)

In other words it is liberals, leftists, and Democrats who promote snuffing out the life of blacks in the womb at a higher rate than whites.

And in their twisted little minds that means it is the right-wingers who are the racists.

According to the site linked to, Guttmacher brings in black and Hispanic abortion as 60 percent of all abortions (while being minority populations).

White Democrats must be delighted since they have convinced non-whites to reduced their numbers at a higher rate than whites!

I reckon you have a weak point then, because if your definition doesn’t include the idea of abortion, then it is an incomplete definition. Even the LEGAL definition of genocide according to International Law INCLUDES the forcible sterilization or prevention of persons so they may not reproduce. Thus, the law recognizes there are more ways to skin a cat (murder) than you and nitwits like you would have us believe.

Oh how utterly convenient for the depraved among us!

Denying the right to reproduce, then, as a matter of law, IS a form of murder when forced. In this case genocide.

You are such a numskull and thus your momma made the wrong fricken choice by letting you be born.

Too bad for the rest of us since you are such a nuisance to humanity and deserve for yourself what you have wished for 50 million some odd others.

Maybe the anti-abortion movement hates the eugenics overtones of the abortion-on-demand movement. Now that liberals have gone back to calling themselves progressives again they think that the rest of us have forgotten their proud eugenics-friendly past. Just because the arguments have shifted to disguise this seedy past, doesn’t mean the effect of abortion and birth control on the lower classes and minorities has. In fact the data clearly shows that abortion and birth control is having the exact eugenic effect the Progressives thought it would. It’s also clear that the fine lefties of this forum don’t seem to mind that so much. Combine that with their hatred of the rubes in fly-over country and, well, you don’t have to be Margaret Sanger to connect the dots.

I think the question is why is the Catholic Church so highly mobilized on abortion politics in the US, when it apparently is not in Italy, which has an 87 percent Catholic population yet has legalized abortion?

I understand why some people are anti-abortion. I think there are probably many people like me who are not pro-abortion–but who believe that pregnant women should have choices when their lives are in danger or when they are victims of rape and incest.

One thing I find troubling is that some of these anti-abortion people are the same folks who don’t want to spend any taxpayer money on programs that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies, would provide contraceptives to women, would make inexpensive healthcare available to poor women who are pregnant, would help provide for the children whose mothers were forced to have them.

§ 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. “Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human
being who has been born and is alive.
2. “Abortional act” means an act committed upon or with respect to a
female, whether by another person or by the female herself, whether she
is pregnant or not, whether directly upon her body or by the
administering, taking or prescription of drugs or in any other manner,
with intent to cause a miscarriage of such female.
3. “Justifiable abortional act.” An abortional act is justifiable when
committed upon a female with her consent by a duly licensed physician
acting (a) under a reasonable belief that such is necessary to preserve
her life, or, (b) within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her
pregnancy. A pregnant female’s commission of an abortional act upon
herself is justifiable when she acts upon the advice of a duly licensed
physician (1) that such act is necessary to preserve her life, or, (2)
within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her pregnancy. The
submission by a female to an abortional act is justifiable when she
believes that it is being committed by a duly licensed physician, acting
under a reasonable belief that such act is necessary to preserve her
life, or, within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of her
pregnancy.

Do you mean besides food stamps (about $2,200), housing assistance (about $5,400), Medicaid (about $6,000 for a family of four), the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (about $1,000 per child), energy assistance (about $400), the school lunch and breakfast programs (as much as $600 per child), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (about $400 per person), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (about $1,700), plus plain old welfare benefits (2002: typical benefits for a family of four with income up to nearly $21,000)?

So if you were aware of all these governmental benefits and perhaps if Planned Parenthood would use more of their funding and donations for the things you favor instead of abortion advocacy, perhaps you’d be less troubled.

50 million abortions are not genocide. They are 50 million decisions made by free individual women who choose not to have a baby. Where are there any forced abortions in the United States? It is the individual’s decision, not yours. And that’s what really bothers you.

When you exercise power over an individual’s inalienable right of self-ownership, then you have engaged in tyranny by definition. Without that 24 week window, the woman becomes property of the state.

Also note the negative implication of the state’s inability to exercise power over an individual’s right of self-ownership.

The 13th Amendment, while good intentioned, is tyrannical as well. Why? Because to concede that the government has the power to make a law banning slavery negatively implies that it has the power to reinstate it. This is yet another reason why it’s so important to understand the Ninth Amendment.

Tootie, don’t let that empty-headed Mespo get to you. He’s just a bully with poor argument skills which is somewhat surprising since he apparently is a licensed lawyer. His arguments are so poorly formed, he has to sprinkle them with personal insults to disguise his lack of knowledge and original thought. He will also often post irrelevant quotes to make it look like he’s “smart.” He isn’t; he’s just a classless lefty bully.

He’s just a bully with poor argument skills which is somewhat surprising since he apparently is a licensed lawyer. His arguments are so poorly formed, he has to sprinkle them with personal insults to disguise his lack of knowledge and original thought. He will also often post irrelevant quotes to make it look like he’s “smart.” He isn’t; he’s just a classless lefty bully.

*******************

No argument from me, but I am struck by the sane, logical, idea-based, and polite argument form you’ve adopted. Thanks for being my Exhibit A in the right-wing troll hypocrisy trial.

One of the things I have always found strange about the whole abortion issue is this: This is, for the most part, a conservative issue. The people who protest abortion and even birth control, are among the same ones who rail against the government getting into their private lives.

How is it that the most intimate part of people’s lives; sexual intimacy and reproductive matters, should be the subject of a major push for government intrusion? And it is not limited to just sex and abortion.

Moving on to another important personal issue, let us not forget attempted government intrusion into end of life decisions by family, as we saw in the Terri Schiavo matter.

@Mespron, I wasn’t making an argument, I was just warning Tootsie of your disgraceful tactics. And actually your behavior on this short thread alone is exhibit A to the level of discourse one has to deal with. Stay classy, troll.

blhlls: ” I can respect that view, even if I don’t agree, when voiced by those who recognize the importance of providing alternate sources for the many services provided by Planned Parenthood.”

To me the problem is that alternate sources are not being provided or even allowed. Pro-lifers seem to be for life only until it leaves the womb. The same people who are most against abortion are also against family planning, contraception, pregnancy nutrition assistance, day care centers, and, ultimately, giving public schools the resources to prepare the next generation of workers.

Dagmar
1, July 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm
I think the question is why is the Catholic Church so highly mobilized on abortion politics in the US, when it apparently is not in Italy, which has an 87 percent Catholic population yet has legalized abortion?

Yes. I too feel that it is about slavery as Winski alleges above. If you are not allowed control of your own body, the only thing inherently yours, you’re no better off than a slave. This position of slave (at worst case) or dangerous, insolent child (at best case), comes directly from the bible. Women are the originators of original sin.

That makes them dangerous to the spiritual and real well being of themselves and all those they can influence. If it weren’t for women we would still be at play in Eden.

I also think that the desire for women to be little more than vessels for new life is a symptom of self hatred and hatred of god himself. If the world taints all, then the only hope of spiritual perfection available is a new, untainted life that has been cleansed of original sin (baptism) but is as yet untainted by the world through their own bad choices.

This is IMO the primary reason for the drive among pro-lifers to do away with contraception, a long standing movement but one that has flown under the radar for years. If a group believes that their mandate from their god is to strive for spiritual perfection then that group needs to encourage a mechanism to maximize their opportunity for that perfection. Even if one can not perfect ones self the striving will count in ones favor. As a group endeavour for perfection, ensuring that one has the raw material for perfection at hand (over time) is necessary to benefit the group.

In that regard female sexuality, directed and controlled, is crucial. Unfortunately, women are not trustworthy historically. Their desire to control their own bodies is a danger to the sanctity of the group and jeopardises the groups future benefits as promised by their god. This gives women extraordinary power. This puts power into the hands of the least worthy among the group. If one can’t question or hate your god for doing something that disrespectful to one, then you have to turn that hatred somewhere.

I personally think it goes way beyond just hating women’s sexuality, I believe it’s a movement that has at its heart the fear and resultig hatred of women.

Thanks for the link, lottakatz. An eye-opener… I had no idea that Rep. Ryan was sent packing by “Democrats For Life of America” for his pro-contraceptives stance. (He was on their advisory board.):

Excerpt:

U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) has been, in his words, “booted” from the national advisory board of Democrats For Life of America. The group’s mission is to elect and support pro-life Democrats; Ryan served on the board for four years but the relationship had recently soured when he co-sponsored the “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act”:

Ryan said he tried to convince officials with Democrats For Life of America, which he referred to Monday as a “fringe group,” that the use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies but that failed.

Kristen Day, Democrats For Life’s executive director, was ready to move on. “DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he’s committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn.”

Many Christians who are active in the evolving anti-birth-control arena state frankly that what links their efforts is a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country. In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex. Dr. Stanford, the F.D.A. adviser on reproductive-health drugs, proclaimed himself “fully committed to promoting an understanding of human sexuality and procreation radically at odds with the prevailing views and practices of our contemporary culture.” Focus on the Family posts a kind of contraceptive warning label on its Web site: “Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary.” Contraception, by this logic, encourages sexual promiscuity, sexual deviance (like homosexuality) and a preoccupation with sex that is unhealthful even within marriage. (end excerpt)

Thank you for reinforcing my point that many in the anti-choice movement are really anti-women and anti-sex. I think that is the reflection of a goal-driven leadership that has used anti-choice as a smokescreen to hide their
real agenda. However, as shown in your citations occasionally their true purposes leak out. What has made them successful is that almost everyone loves babies, even though some might not even like children and teens. We’re hard wired to be emotionally moved by infants and toddlers. By playing on human emotion they rope in supporters who even may feel quite differently then them about sexuality. Anti-Choice at its highest levels is really anti-woman and anti-sex.

The efforts of some to control people, be it for power, money or their own personal predilections always comes down to controlling women and controlling sex. Both, interlocking as they are, present the wild card of opposition to totalitarian rule. Orwell’s “1984” a masterpiece in examining the totalitarian mind and its’ methods, featured “The Anti-Sex League” as a prominent methodology of control. The RLC, once taken over by Constantine, relegated Jesus’ teachings to the background and promoted sexuality as the worst sin. Many of the sects of Protestant Christianity have done the same. Orthodox Islam is so infected by it we all know the examples. Orthodox Judaism is highly patriarchal but at least considers sex within marriage as a blessing and obligation. Perhaps the less immoderate view of sex is why Judaism has always be a minority religion. The religions of the East also have a more reasonable view of marital sexuality, but they too are for Patriarchy and against sexuality outside of marriage.

Sex is of course among our most powerful drives and for a humanity where for the many life is short, dismal and painful, sex can represent a transcendent respite from the woes of life. A person’s allegiance to the one they love can shake the foundations of a society and therefore in the totalitarian mind must be replaced by imposed “controls” and made up sins.

“The people who protest abortion and even birth control, are among the same ones who rail against the government getting into their private lives.”

OS, this hypocritical dichotomy is often ignored as a clear way of understanding that much of the faux-Conservative movement is founded not upon a particular philosophic outlook, but upon a propaganda based campaign to gain power and wealth, via influencing susceptible people to act against their own self interest.

Transference … for those who believe that their god punishes individuals and groups, the old Adam trick of standing back and pointing a finger at Eve whilst loudly proclaiming, “She made me do it!” is typical.

Any woman worth her salt should respond, “You’re full of shit and that voice you claim to hear ain’t god’s.” … then turn and walk away.

1. The act of unlawfully killing a human being with premeditated malice, by a person of sound mind. To constitute murder in law, the person killing another must be of sound mind or in possession of his reason, and the act must be done with malice prepense, aforethought or premeditated; but malice may be implied, as well as express.

2. An outcry, when life is in danger.
MUR’DER, v.t.

1. To kill a human being with premeditated malice. [See the Noun.]

2. To destroy; to put an end to.

Canst thou murder thy breath in middle of a word?

I like the old ones, that way you at least know it hasnt been edited to much [who knows if the website takes liberties]

“I like the old ones, that way you at least know it hasnt been edited to much”

************************

Yeah. Why disturb perfectly antiquated ideas and attitudes with new, relevant, and possibly conflicting information. Thanks, Roco, for your most revealing comment to date. I often wondered what you do with new information. Now I know. I’ve forwarded your application to the Flat Earth Society.

If you knew any history of the topic, you’d know the current thinking is pretty much inline with the thinking of Aristotle and many fathers of the Christian Church, but why bother you with that “new” information either. You do much better with you hands over your ears proclaiming “I can’t hear you” over and over. That makes you very pious, of course.

Bob, yes I knew that. I was oversimplifying to make a point. Murder is a felony in all foreseeable circumstances. Abortion is, by ruling of the SCOTUS, legal, subject to controlling laws and ordinances. I was responding to a comment that flatly equated abortion with murder, which it is not, according to law.

I have sometimes pondered this question: Why are those that are opposed to Abortion, so readily ready to support the death penalty…which I am opposed to…UNLESS…It is a Gruesome Pre-Meditated MURDER and/or Rape involving FORCE or Brutality which leads to death or incapacation of its victims…….I do not limit this to Women…Men can and do Rape Men….But Children in a separate and special class all by themselves…The parents should be able to exact a pound of flesh before the Villain is summarily executed…I am aware that prison takes care of its own…That is just me….

The catholic church is against the death penalty and abortion but they rarely bring up the death penalty. The christian fundamentalists believe in the death penalty as sort of an “an eye for an eye” biblical thing . I think that is why they use the death penalty so much in the south where there are so many evangelical governors. Rick Perry is the main offender.

Let me return to the question I asked Antonio–and why I asked it. I attended parochial schools through 12th grade. When I was in the 6th grade, my teacher, a nun, brought up the subject of Catholic doctors and and a woman giving birth. That nun told us that if a Catholic doctor had to choose between saving the life of a mother or a baby during a problem labor/birth, he’d have to save the baby. That didn’t seem right–nor did it seem fair–to me.

I don’t know if that nun was correct–but it troubled me greatly when I thought that could possibly happen to my own mother.

Can you provide me with a medical definition of partial birth abortion and information about when and why one may be performed? For example, are partial birth abortions ever performed to save a mother’s life?

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.

*****
In a case such as that noted in (a) above, I think a woman ought to have the right to choose between saving her own life or that of her baby.

I have no problem with any woman exercising her natural right of self-defense. The unresolved question is whether a Catholic physician must make the choice to save the life of the child/fetus over that of the mother when complications occur during pregnancy. For that reason, I suggested that you present your question to the Catholic Medical Association.

It’s clear that those calling abortion “murder” don’t consider that bit of judicial activism known as Roe v Wade and its progeny to be valid. Also, Even if it is legally valid, doesn’t mean its not “murder” as a matter of morals.

And Bob, Esq. How dare you suggest that there are competing rights other than a woman’s right to choose to abort her growing human fetus.

Lastly, re the death penalty vs. Abortion dichotomy. One has to remember that the commandment really forbids murder, not the mistranslated kill.

kderosa: “It’s clear that those calling abortion “murder” don’t consider that bit of judicial activism known as Roe v Wade and its progeny to be valid. Also, Even if it is legally valid, doesn’t mean its not “murder” as a matter of morals.”

Roe v. Wade merely restates the bounds of the social contract. You show me a world in which a woman does not retain the right to determine the course of her own life within the first trimester and I’ll show you a social contract that is void as being illusory.

kderosa: And Bob, Esq. How dare you suggest that there are competing rights other than a woman’s right to choose to abort her growing human fetus.”

Better than suggesting that women should be deemed property of the state.

The question has to do with the position of a Catholic physician or a Catholic hospital when presented with a choice of baby/fetus vs mother. It was not presented as a question of law. It was presented as a matter of choice/preference when the law provides no direction.

“Even if it is legally valid, doesn’t mean its not “murder” as a matter of morals.”

****************

It’s tempting to defer to the Hebrew Bible in matters of killing. There is so much of it in there and it’s all justified if accomplished by the “right” tribe. “Murder” seems to occur only when Israelites are killed by infidels. If Israelites do the killing, like with the Amalachites, it’s God’s will.

Maybe we could adopt a similarly enlightened law: Murder occurs when any conservative is killed by a liberal regardless of circumstances. If a liberal is killed it’s just a happy accident unless done by another liberal and then it’s murder. And if the Supreme Court ok’s the act it’s murder because who listens to those old fogeys anyway … unless of course it’s on the rights of the Second Amendment at which time the opinion is considered the Word of the Almighty. Very easy moral system to understand: conservative, good and liberal, bad.

Roe v Wade’s progeny is not limited to the first trimester, so that argument fails. Also, where is this social contract codified?

Who is suggesting that women are property of the state? I don’t have the right to choose many things with my body. I can’t choose to murder my neighbor. I can’t choose to steal from my friends. I can’t choose to rape the woman down the street. Does that make me the property of the state?

Bob Esq., “You show me a world in which a woman does not retain the right to determine the course of her own life within the first trimester and I’ll show you a social contract that is void as being illusory.”

How was it that the first trimester came to be set aside? Was it an arbitrary number of days that the majority agreed upon?

Tell me son, without the social contract, as referenced by Locke, copied and restated by Jefferson in the second paragraph of the Declaration and further constituted in our republic as defined and ratified in 1787, just what are the ultimate boundaries of our government? Without the distinction between tyranny and usurpation, what’s to stop the government from exercising whatever power it wants?

kderosa: “Who is suggesting that women are property of the state?” Without that first trimester window, the state necessarily exercises a power over the woman’s inalienable right of self ownership which is tyranny by definition.

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”

“As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”

kderosa: “I don’t have the right to choose many things with my body. I can’t choose to murder my neighbor. I can’t choose to steal from my friends. I can’t choose to rape the woman down the street. Does that make me the property of the state?”

Each of your examples involves a trespass. Issues regarding self-ownership/duties of virtue as opposed to duties of right do not involve trespass.

The Torah and most of its supportive Jewish writings state that life begins with the first breath. What may be murder to one or more religious beliefs, may not be to others. Which morality do we choose? That is the whole anti choice issue, all the rest is debate. When the morality of some, becomes the initiator of rules for all, the result is problematic. It is far better to allow people of belief to practice their own moral codes upon their own lives, without trying to impose them on others.

I think abortion is the killing of human life but then how do you tell a woman she must sacrifice her life to her unborn child if she thinks it is not in her best interest to carry the child to term?

It would be a very hard decision to take, to kill an unborn child. Especially if you have other children and have watched them grow. If I were a woman I dont think I could to it. But that is the issue, I should be the one taking the decision. The state should have no part either way. It is not the states issue either way.

Bob Esq, I never called myself a conservative, that was merely a bad assumption on your part.

Since the Declaration of Independence isn’t law, you’re saying that the social contract is codified in the Constitution. I agree. So where in the Constitution does it say that a “woman … retain[s] the right to determine the course of her own life within the first trimester.” The Constitution appears to be silent on this matter, not giving any enumerated power to the federal government, instead deferring this question to the states through their police power.

Again, the issue isn’t the first trimester window because no such window exists, women can get an abortion well past the first trimester. The issue is really about two conflicting rights: the woman’s right to reproductive freedom and the fetus’ human rights and when they should be accorded those rights.

Each of my examples does involve a trespass, as does the woman’s right to an abortion trespasses on the fetus’s human rights as soon as those rights are accorded. some think those rights don’t exist until the vaginal canal, other’s think the rights begin at conception, still others at stirring/quickening/viability. Seems to me that this is a policy issue that should be left in the hands of the people to decide and if you think there should be some Constitutional limitations, then we have a process to deal with that as well.

@Mike Spindell– ” It is far better to allow people of belief to practice their own moral codes upon their own lives, without trying to impose them on others.”

That judgment is itself a policy issue that the majority does not appear to believe is correct since we have always and routinely permitted government to take morals into consideration in exercising their police power.

kderosa: “Bob Esq, I never called myself a conservative, that was merely a bad assumption on your part.”

So what are you; a simple contrarian?

kderosa: “Since the Declaration of Independence isn’t law, you’re saying that the social contract is codified in the Constitution. I agree.”

I didn’t say that and the terms of the social contract are simple; thou shalt not exercise power beyond right which no one has a right to. It’s self evident actually.

kderosa: “So where in the Constitution does it say that a “woman … retain[s] the right to determine the course of her own life within the first trimester.”

Actually, since the constitution is simply a scheme of specifically enumerated powers, the question becomes where is the specifically enumerated power to treat women as property of the United States?

kderosa: “The Constitution appears to be silent on this matter, not giving any enumerated power to the federal government, instead deferring this question to the states through their police power.”

Just because a power was not given to the Fed doesn’t mean that the individual bestowed the same power to the state. A state government has no more power to breach the social contract than the Fed. “Thou shalt not exercise power beyond right which no one has a right to” applies to all governments.

kderosa: Again, the issue isn’t the first trimester window because no such window exists, women can get an abortion well past the first trimester.

My argument goes to the necessity of the window per the social contract remaining valid; anything beyond the first trimester is irrelevant per my argument.

kderosa: “The issue is really about two conflicting rights: the woman’s right to reproductive freedom and the fetus’ human rights and when they should be accorded those rights.”

Absolutely.

kderosa: Each of my examples does involve a trespass, as does the woman’s right to an abortion trespasses on the fetus’s human rights as soon as those rights are accorded. some think those rights don’t exist until the vaginal canal, other’s think the rights begin at conception, still others at stirring/quickening/viability. Seems to me that this is a policy issue that should be left in the hands of the people to decide and if you think there should be some Constitutional limitations, then we have a process to deal with that as well.”

The premise that life begins at conception and the state has an interest in protecting that life from conception is an exercise of power over the woman’s inalienable right of self-ownership and is tyranny per se. The first trimester window is sufficient to separate government from individual for purposes of preserving the social contract between the government and the mother and preserving the rights of the unborn thereafter.

Once again, I brought up partial birth abortion to contrast with your apparent dead certainty that consideration for the mother’s life is always paramount.

What’s funny here is I’ve been waiting for you to justify your position regarding the mother’s life always being paramount; i.e. by introducing the problem of viability. Yet you keep asking me what my position is. How is that relevant?

No, just not a doctrinaire conservative, especially with respect to social issues.

thou shalt not exercise power beyond right which no one has a right to. It’s self evident actually.

I certainly don’t disagree. However, how would you justify the welfare state? No individual has the right to take my property from me even for presumptively good causes. So, what right does a bunch of indivduals have to take my process through the democratic process?

the question becomes where is the specifically enumerated power to treat women as property of the United States

So we agree that the Federal Government has no such right. But the question remains what right does the Constitution give to the federal government to prevent states from doing that, assuming that’s what they are doing?

A state government has no more power to breach the social contract than the Fed.

That would depend on each state’s Constitution whether that right has been delegated or not.

My argument goes to the necessity of the window per the social contract remaining valid; anything beyond the first trimester is irrelevant per my argument.

I don’t see where this first trimester magic comes into play. If the majority believes that life begins at conception of at some point before the end of the first trimester and that human rights should be accorded at this time, then we’d have to balance the competing interests to see what right should trump the other.

The premise that life begins at conception and the state has an interest in protecting that life from conception is an exercise of power over the woman’s inalienable right of self-ownership and is tyranny per se.

“Once again, I brought up partial birth abortion to contrast with your apparent dead certainty that consideration for the mother’s life is always paramount.

“What’s funny here is I’ve been waiting for you to justify your position regarding the mother’s life always being paramount; i.e. by introducing the problem of viability. Yet you keep asking me what my position is. How is that relevant?”

**********
I’ve compiled my comments on this thread with the exception of a couple that don’t relate to this specific discussion about a mother’s right to choose:

*****
I understand why some people are anti-abortion. I think there are probably many people like me who are not pro-abortion–but who believe that pregnant women should have choices when their lives are in danger or when they are victims of rape and incest.

One thing I find troubling is that some of these anti-abortion people are the same folks who don’t want to spend any taxpayer money on programs that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies, would provide contraceptives to women, would make inexpensive healthcare available to poor women who are pregnant, would help provide for the children whose mothers were forced to have them.

*****
If someone killed another person in order to defend his/her own life, would you consider that to be murder?

*****
Let me return to the question I asked Antonio–and why I asked it. I attended parochial schools through 12th grade. When I was in the 6th grade, my teacher, a nun, brought up the subject of Catholic doctors and a woman giving birth. That nun told us that if a Catholic doctor had to choose between saving the life of a mother or a baby during a problem labor/birth, he’d have to save the baby. That didn’t seem right–nor did it seem fair–to me.

I don’t know if that nun was correct–but it troubled me greatly when I thought that could possibly happen to my own mother.

*****
Can you provide me with a medical definition of partial birth abortion and information about when and why one may be performed? For example, are partial birth abortions ever performed to save a mother’s life?

*****
What is considered “late term?”
What are the reasons for late terms abortions? Are partial birth abortions ever performed to save a mother’s life?

Excerpts:
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.

In a case such as that noted in (a) above, I think a woman ought to have the right to choose between saving her own life or that of her baby.
Do you think a woman should have that right?

*****
Please note that I wrote the following: “I don’t know if that nun was correct–but it troubled me greatly when I thought that could possibly happen to my own mother.”

I didn’t say I was relying on what the nun told me–but that I had found it troubling.

Do you think a woman has the right to choose between saving her own life or that of her baby?

Why don’t you ask the Catholic Medical Association about its position on the subject and get back to us with the information?

*****
“I don’t know Elaine; don’t you think the issue of viability makes that decision a tad more difficult

It does indeed make for a difficult decision. Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?

*****
“I don’t see that as the primary issue. The issue is the decision itself.”
Are you saying that you think no decision should be made by either the doctor or the mother and that they should just let nature takes its course?

*****
“No, I said ‘The issue is the decision itself.’ When viability enters the equation it’s no longer a simple late term abortion of a fetus.”

First, I doubt a late term abortion is simple. Second, what would it be then if not a late term abortion?

*****
And I’m attempting to make you reflect on your comments here too. I think you’re trying to avoid answering some of my questions.

– Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?

– Are you saying that you think no decision should be made by either the doctor or the mother and that they should just let nature takes its course?

– Second, what would it be then if not a late term abortion?

*****
Elaine: “Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?”

Bob: “When I said the issue is the decision itself, I meant determining the moral equation to make the decision; whether made by the mother, doctor or the law.”

Is that your final answer to my question above? Or would you be willing to provide us with a moral equation on the subject?

*****

Bob,

I didn’t say the woman’s life was paramount. I did say that I believe a woman should have the right to make the decision when her own life is in jeopardy. Some women may choose to save their own lives; some may choose to save the lives of their babies. How would you like me to justify my belief? I am woman and I think women should have the right to choose.

As a man, you’d never be put in the position of a pregnant woman whose life may be endangered by a pregnancy. This discussion may be philosophical to you. It isn’t to me.

“Noway: “If you are dependent on the snarky remarks of your friends as support for your position, you already lost the debate.”

Bob is dependent on no one in debate or for position support. He could handle the likes of you and your friends simultaneously while playing chess
and putting together a brief. Silly boy, if you think you’re anywhere near his league in thought or debate.

1. HOW MANY UNWANTED,ABUSED BABIES HAVE YOU TAKEN INTO YOUR HOME??
2. how many of you men have caught a std from having sex outside of marriage and are now scared to have sex with your wives for fear of passing it on?

3. how many more dead and abused children must we mourn before you idiots open your eyes?

4. how many of you men want to support a child conceived by rape?

5.how many of you women want to give birth to a child conceived thru rape?

kderosa: “how would you justify the welfare state? No individual has the right to take my property from me even for presumptively good causes. So, what right does a bunch of indivduals have to take my process through the democratic process?”

I’m not sure what you mean; are you saying that using taxation to fund welfare is a form of tyranny? Existing by virtue of policy established by legislation, I don’t see how that argument flies. Usurpation; perhaps. Tyranny, no.

kderosa: “So we agree that the Federal Government has no such right. But the question remains what right does the Constitution give to the federal government to prevent states from doing that, assuming that’s what they are doing?”

You mean power; don’t you? The Fed was never granted a general power to promulgate penal laws; thus the reason drug laws evolved from tax acts such as the Harrison Tax Act of 1914. But I’m not sure what you mean regarding the Fed preventing state legislation regarding abortion.

Me: “A state government has no more power to breach the social contract than the Fed.”

kderosa: “That would depend on each state’s Constitution whether that right has been delegated or not.”

No, the social contract is the condition precedent to any government (here in the U.S.). Just as space and time are prerequisites to experience, so too is the social contract a prerequisite to the existence of government.

Me: “My argument goes to the necessity of the window per the social contract remaining valid; anything beyond the first trimester is irrelevant per my argument.”

kderosa: I don’t see where this first trimester magic comes into play.

See above regarding the existence of the social contract being the prerequisite for government. Without that window, the social contract becomes void as illusory.

kderosa: “If the majority believes that life begins at conception of at some point before the end of the first trimester and that human rights should be accorded at this time, then we’d have to balance the competing interests to see what right should trump the other.”

Given your, dare I say, conservative bent, I suggest you take a step back from this singular issue and reconsider the importance of keeping the government to its original promise of limited power. To argue that the government can exercise power at conception necessitates that the government has absolutely no limit on the power it can exercise over the individual; i.e. the citizen of becomes property of the government because the social contract no longer exists. The true conservative knows where the main power switch to government is and is never afraid to turn it off when said government strays out of bounds with power. And the main power switch always goes back to the distinction between tyranny and usurpation.

Me: The premise that life begins at conception and the state has an interest in protecting that life from conception is an exercise of power over the woman’s inalienable right of self-ownership and is tyranny per se.

kderosa:: How is that so?

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every [one] has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”

“As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”

Without that first trimester window, the government exercises a property interest in the individual at conception which is tyranny per se.

Would you care to explain in your own words how my argument is wrong instead of relying on a commercial? Why do you think a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose even when her own life may be in danger?

“He that would seriously set upon the search of truth ought in the first place to prepare his mind with a love of it. For he that loves it not will not take much pains to get it; nor be much concerned when he misses it.” (Locke)

I’ve attempted to answer your questions honestly–yet you keep avoiding my questions. I told you that I do believe a woman should have a right to choose when her life is in danger. Would you care to answer questions that I posed to you previously?

“Why do you think a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose even when her own life may be in danger?”

“Do you think a woman has the right to choose between saving her own life or that of her baby?”

“Who do you think should have the right to decide–the doctor or the mother whose life is in jeopardy?”

“Are you saying that you think no decision should be made by either the doctor or the mother and that they should just let nature takes its course?”

*****

You criticize me–yet you’re not willing to state your opinion on the subject at hand. I’d say that you’re the master of the cop out.

My point re the welfare state is simple. No one has the right to take my property without my consent, absent some injury, and without just compensation. So if no one has such a right, where did the state get that right to fund the welfare state?

Roe permitted the Federal Government via the Supreme Court to prevent the enforcement of various state laws prohibiting abortion. I don’t see this poet enumerated in the Constitution.

The bounds of the social contract is codified in the Constitution. That’s it. You’re trying to reach back and reinterpret it according to your whim. The rest of your argument depends on this. The Constitution determines the power or rights conferred and defines how government is limited. In the instant case, there is no first trimester limitation in any social contract or constitution provision. Reaching back to some philosopher’s opinion, no matter how wise, doesn’t change that. So, I don’t believe tyranny comes into play here.

Elaine: “Why do you think a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose even when her own life may be in danger?”

Bob: “I never said that, so you can keep your loaded question.”

Elaine: “Are you saying that you think no decision should be made by either the doctor or the mother and that they should just let nature takes its course?”

Bob: “Once again, a loaded question. I never said anything like you suggest.”

I apologize if those appeared to be loaded questions. I had inferred from your previous responses to me that you didn’t think a woman had the right to choose. I don’t understand why you didn’t state your positions earlier on in this discussion…or answer my questions. You left me to draw my own conclusions.

kderosa: “The bounds of the social contract is codified in the Constitution. That’s it. You’re trying to reach back and reinterpret it according to your whim. The rest of your argument depends on this.”

To say that of me is to say that Jefferson’s Declaration was just a whim as well. Without an understanding of the social contract one can never understand the foundational thinking of the framers in drafting the constitution in accordance therewith.

kderosa: “The Constitution determines the power or rights conferred and defines how government is limited.”

Yet another indication that you need to read up on the social contract as it relates to the constitution; the constitution does not confer any rights whatsoever. Rights confer power; not vice versa. And the conferring of those rights begin with the formation of the social contract. If you had a firm grasp on what the social contract is in relation to our constitution, you would never have been so sloppy with your language.

kderosa: In the instant case, there is no first trimester limitation in any social contract or constitution provision.

I never said that. Further, your mis-characterization of my argument is nothing more than an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

kderosa: I don’t believe tyranny comes into play here.

Of course not, you threw the concept out the window once you ignored the social contract.

“Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity. [One] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man, nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason; he must grant that every other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience-even a precept that may in certain respects be universal-in so far as it rests in the least on empirical grounds-perhaps only in its motive–can indeed be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.” — Immanuel Kant

I never said that moral arguments were dependent upon the sex of the proponent. Some of us have life experiences that we draw upon when we develop our viewpoints/positions on certain subjects or issues. I wrote in one comment to you that what might be a philosophical argument for you–was not one to me.

“Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity.”

What is the “absolute necessity” when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger? Saving the mother’s life or saving the baby’s life? Some people might disagree on what is morally valid as a ground of obligation.

No I think I understood. That is why I thought Elaines experience with child birth was important.

Respectfully, I fail to see how the nature of man is not important to constructing a moral law under which man is to act. If the moral law is not in man’s nature then how can it be considered moral? Since a law outside of man’s nature would be hard if not impossible for man to meet.

For a law to be moral it must be based on the nature of man. It must have some basis in man. If it does not how can man attain or even subscribe to a moral code? Therefore, at least in my mind, experience must count because it provides information on the nature of man.

[…] say they are in the media. All of us have different reasons for opposing abortion. For example, I hate women. Others may not hate women per se, but certainly don’t believe they deserve equal rights. The […]